Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S2 · Q11 A severe blow to the head can cause

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consciousness; from this some people infer that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death.

Conclusion

We would need more substantial evidence than the fact that blows to head cause people to lose consciousness to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death.

Evidence

A damaged radio may suddenly cease broadcasting the program it had been playing a second ago, but we don't conclude form this that the program itself has ceased to exist.

Evaluate

We can tell that our author is trying to rebut a position, because we see from this some people infer that X. But ...

As soon as we hit the "But", we can pause and think,

She presents an analogy to suggest that maybe it can. Maybe the human body is like a radio, and consciousness is just the show that the body is "receiving" (like an antenna). Damaging the body (just like damaging the radio) would cause the body to no longer be able to "broadcast" the consciousness program, but the program might still exist even though the body can no longer broadcast it.

Goal

The question stem is asking about the damaged radio, which is part of the analogy the author uses to support her rebuttal.

In the analogy, the damaged radio is akin to the damaged head from the first sentence.

11.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the example of the damaged radio?

  1. It is cited as evidence

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: does in fact survive Bad Conclusion Match The damaged radio is part of an analogy that is evidence for the author's rebuttal. But the author's conclusion is a very weak, inconclusive idea: your blow-to-the-head evidence doesn't convince me that consciousness doesn't survive. Saying something like, "I'm not convinced I should hire you" does not mean the same thing as "I'm convinced I should not hire you". This answer acts like the author's conclusion was, "I'm convinced that consciousness survives bodily death", when it was really "I'm not convinced that consciousness ends via bodily death".

    2% picked this

  2. It is cited as a

    Trap

    Not a Counterexample Too Strong: widely accepted It never said there was a "widely accepted" belief. It just said "some people infer". But if we forgave that problem, we'd be thinking, "What was the belief?" It was that consciousness cannot survive bodily death. Is the "damaged radio" claim a counterexample to that? No, a counterexample is a specific place / person / thing that does not conform to a general claim. So a counterexample to this belief would be, "What about Eddie? He had bodily death but his consciousness survived!"

    9% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is cited as a

    Why this is right

    It is indeed cited as an analogous case, since the author brings the conversation back to the consciousness / bodily death focus by using Similarly, which is a classic keyword for analogies. When people see that a damaged body loses consciousness, they conclude that once the body stops working, consciousness also stops. Meanwhile, when people see that a damaged radio no longer broadcasts a certain radio program, they do not conclude that once a radio stops working, the program it was airing also stops.

    Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

  4. It is cited as the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is the final sentence, and it does not say that "the relationship of consciousness to the brain is analogous to that of a radio program to the radio that receives it". It doesn't even mention radios. This analogous relationship is implied but never stated. According to this answer, however, the main conclusion explicitly identifies this analogous relationship.

    12% picked this

  5. It is cited as an

    Trap

    Weak Match Out of Scope: purely of energy Within this analogy, it does feel fair to say that the radio / body are material things that provide evidence of the radio program / consciousness, which we would probably agree (from outside knowledge) consists purely of energy. But this argument never said or implied that radio programs or consciousness exist purely of energy and depend on something material to provide evidence of its existence. We're just nodding our heads to that language based on our own sense of these concepts in real life. The correct answer doesn't involve us needing to insert our own thinking. We can just match the language of the answer choice to what was actually said in the paragraph. According to this answer choice, the damaged radio is cited as an example of case when pure energy needs a material vessel to make itself known. The author definitely does not announce this damaged radio analogy as an example pure energy needing a material vessel. Finally, this answer choice is describing a radio program, not a damaged radio. A damaged radio is not an example of something consisting purely of energy.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free